Clement v. Wilson

135 F. 749, 68 C.C.A. 387, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4374
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 18, 1905
DocketNo. 94
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 135 F. 749 (Clement v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clement v. Wilson, 135 F. 749, 68 C.C.A. 387, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4374 (2d Cir. 1905).

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error by the defendant in the court below brought to review an order setting aside a verdict in favor of the defendant and directing a new trial. The verdict was set aside because the court was of the opinion that it had not been rendered by an impartial jury. There are two reasons why this writ of error cannot be entertained: (1) It has long been the established law in the courts of the United States that to grant or refuse a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the court to-[750]*750which the motion is addressed, and the result cannot be made the subject of a review upon a writ of error. Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 24 L. Ed. 1085; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426, 23 L. Ed. 286; Railroad Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; 23 L. Ed. 898. (2) This court can only review final decisions, and the order of the court below in granting a new'trial has no element of finality. No judgment is final which does not terminate the litigation between parties. Upon this ground a judgment of reversal, granting a new trial, cannot be reviewed. Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176, 23 L. Ed. 480; Tracy v. Holcombe, 214 How. 426, 16 L. Ed. 742; St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628, 21 L. Ed. 813.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Greenspahn v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
186 F.2d 616 (Second Circuit, 1951)
De Grazia v. Anderson
58 A.2d 306 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1948)
Roedegir v. Phillips
85 F.2d 995 (Fourth Circuit, 1936)
Hunt v. United States
53 F.2d 333 (Tenth Circuit, 1931)
Prouty v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.
297 F. 603 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Rivera v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
10 P.R. Fed. 94 (D. Puerto Rico, 1917)
Jones v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
133 N.W. 636 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1911)
Denison v. Shawmut Mining Co.
159 F. 102 (Second Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 F. 749, 68 C.C.A. 387, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clement-v-wilson-ca2-1905.